# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-11186 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Jesse Huerra, Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CR-12-6

______________________________ Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Jesse Huerra, federal prisoner # 5451 0-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In its order, the distri ct court stated that it had reviewed Huerra’s arguments and deni ed the motion after finding that he had failed to demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranted

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 4, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-11186 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2024No. 23-11186

2 relief and after considering the applicab le factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Huerra contends that the district court failed to adequately consider or discuss his extraord inary and compelling reasons for compassionate release or the applic ability of the § 3553(a) factors.
We review the denial of Huerra’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a sentence, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor s, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a re duction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). Although the court must provid e specific reasons, Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693, the amount of explanation needed depe nds “upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). “In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of ap pellate review that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that he or she has considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
In United States v. Gallegos , No. 21-50814, 2022 WL 2752601, at *1 (5th Cir. 2022) (unpublished), though “the district court’s explanation was brief,” a panel of our court rejected a defendant’s argument “regarding the sufficiency of the” district court’s “reasons for denying” a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion because (1) the district court ex plicitly considered the briefing before it; (2) the district court expressly stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors; and (3) the same district judge who denied the motion for compassionate release originally se ntenced the defendant. All three circumstances are present in this case. Accordingly, even though the district court’s order denying Huerra’s § 35 82(c)(1)(A)(i) motion was “brief,” “[t]he rationale for the” district court’s “decision is adequately discernable” from the record. See id. The court was particularly concerned with the need to provide just punis hment and afford adequate deterrence, Case: 23-11186 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2024No. 23-11186

3 both of which are § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). To the extent Huerra disagrees with th e district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, mere disagreemen t does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 694. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

_____________________

1 We need not consider Huerra’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he failed to show ext raordinary and compe lling reasons warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Ward , 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693. Case: 23-11186 Document: 33-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2024